Because there is substantial agreement here, in spite of some sputtering, I'm responding directly to Wyttenbach.
With the latest findings - Lugano = Levi (COP 1.4,.. 1.5) - no provable progress since ten years, for me the storybook is closed.
The way I put it, Lugano is dead. It is possible to argue until the cows come home, and all night long, but the substance is as Wyttenbach agrees.
QuoteTo reopen the discussion somebody had to provide a new reactor to an independent and knowledgeable lab to evaluate it.
We are free to discuss whatever we choose, here. However, if the condition described in not fulfilled, none of this discussion could lead to general acceptance of Lugano.
QuoteThe worst experience about Lugano was the invention of new facts, about all kind of errors, proofs (irrefutable ones)...
By whom? I will not expect an answer. If it was someone else, Wyttenbach seems willing to let it go, and if it was him, I do not like to rub peoples faces in errors, beyond necessity. I am not going to follow someone down the street, shouting "you were wrong." In a discussion, I will correct what I see as errors. It is part of how I learn, and once in a while someone shows me my own errors. I consider that a favor, regardless of their motives.
QuoteFinally the Optris issue (wrong emissivity) could be resolved with a support request by Optris.
I am not going to ask Optris about something where the matter is clear, and it is clear on the issues involved. They are not experts on alumina, per se, and what Wyttenbach seems to be talking about is what might be called "off-label" use of the camera and general information they provided. If someone wants to duplicate what MFMP did with the Lugano reactor, their simulation, yes, they might well contact Optris, even to just cover all the bases. That's doing thorough work. What THH wrote about a report of a conversation was cogent. What we saw here was a willingness to "translate" what was actually said in the manual, to make it appear to be what was being said by the author. That, in an academic environment, would be a major offense. Quote, and provide full context. Then interpret, separately. Link to sources used and be specific, this all allows others to easily check.
Many times, I was going to write something that I'd read, but my habit of providing sources caused me to reread the source. Oops! It didn't say what I remembered! Learning to mistrust oneself, in this productive way, is part of developing scientific objectivity. Making it easier for others to check what is being said leads to more rapid correction, when that is needed. Sometimes I go back and read what I wrote years ago. On occasion, I notice an error. And nobody pointed it out. Damn! WTF?
QuoteOne thing everybody should have learned: Without proper calibration, exact documentation and independent reviews no further results will be accepted.
Bingo! The duck comes down with $50 in his mouth.
QuoteLugano was a first IH/Rossi clash story: May be, in ten years we will know the true intentions behind this farce...
This could be a little misleading. We have seen no sign of IH clash with Rossi over Lugano, at the time. Yes. We may suspect that IH, attempting to confirm Lugano, had questions for Rossi. We may suspect some sort of clash arising, but IH, at that point, was not about to push Rossi too hard. Rossi, I suspect, started to think that he could get away with anything with IH, they were so accommodating. The cads! They tricked him by being nice!
QuoteTo be honest: Lugano was just some kind of distraction - not more: And one last thing you can believe me: LENR needs "no" carrier (Ni,Pd,Zr, Ti...) for its ignition. Just watch the BLP/Mills video of the self sustain mode. Or, if you reverse the logic: All the mentioned carriers will work and any COP is possible!
Sigh. I'll leave it at that. Just "Sigh!"